tool_search_restaurants_bars

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a dependency on FOURSQUARE_API_KEY for ratings and lists external sites linked. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits, error handling, or whether pagination occurs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then a bulleted list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters thoroughly, and a key dependency. It mentions return content (links to sites) but lacks detail on result format, sorting, or pagination. Adequate but not exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: radius_m with walk time, max_results range, cuisine examples, city purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description starts with 'Find restaurants/bars/pubs/cafes near a location', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings, as no other sibling tool serves the same purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states when to use the tool (to find nearby dining venues). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but given sibling tools, no other is for restaurant search, so usage context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.